Alberta court awards less than 11 percent of costs sought for fender-bender
- 
- The action’s consequence and just about every party’s diploma of achievement: The plaintiff succeeded in his motion. Despite his abrupt end in the left turning lane, the defendant was considered liable for the incident.
- The amounts claimed and recovered: The remaining award was just above two per cent of the preliminary damages assert.
- The importance of the difficulties: The problems – assigning legal responsibility and evaluating damages – ended up not novel and ended up not likely to have considerably-reaching implications on future motor car or truck incidents.
- The action’s complexity: The motion was somewhat basic. It progressed in a plan way. The demo, to begin with allotted for 5 times, lasted two half-days.
- The apportionment of legal responsibility: This aspect was irrelevant.
- The parties’ perform that tended to shorten the motion: The plaintiff’s counsel shortened the motion by entering pertinent clinical information as proof without the need of witness testimony and by bypassing the judicial dispute resolution course of action. The defendant did not look at demo, which also made the proceedings shorter.
- Other issues relating to the question of fair and good expenditures: There have been no regarded offers to settle.







Upcoming, the court docket went by the considerations in r. 10.33(2). It held:
- 
- A party’s carry out that was unnecessary or that unnecessarily lengthened or delayed the motion or any phase or step of it: The defendant, who was self-represented, carried out himself moderately and as greatest as he could.
- A party’s denial of or refusal to confess everything that must have been admitted: The defendant did not deny or refuse to do these kinds of.
- Irrespective of whether any application, continuing, or phase in the action was unneeded, poor, or a miscalculation: There ended up no unwanted purposes, proceedings, or techniques taken in the motion.
- Irrespective of whether a party fully commited misconduct: This factor was irrelevant.
- Any supply of settlement: There was no evidence that these types of was produced.





The court docket identified the subsequent factors inapplicable: a contravention of or non-compliance with the rules or an purchase an irregularity in a graduation doc, pleading, affidavit, detect, prescribed variety, or doc and the thoughts of whether a social gathering begun individual steps for claims that really should have been submitted as one particular or whether or not a occasion unnecessarily separated their defence from that of one more bash.
And finally, the court docket tackled further considerations. It located justification for departing from the rule that the getting rid of celebration really should indemnify somewhere around 40 to 50 p.c of the productive party’s expenses.
“There was no sensible basis for saying this kind of exorbitant damages and pursuing this action in the Courtroom of King’s Bench when there ended up a lot more economical avenues in which this action could have been tackled,” wrote Justice W.P. Sullivan for the court docket.
An adjustment was in line with the concepts of performance and fairness fundamental the Regulations of Court and the principle that value awards should be proportional to the passions involved in an action, as presented in Goldstick Estates (Re), 2019 ABCA 508.